Monday, July 04, 2011

Right to assemble is no blank cheque

In the light of His Majesty the Seri Paduka Yang Dipertuan Agong's official statement to avoid unstability dan disharmony in the country that is the headline news for today, it is timely to discuss about the right to assemble under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

The opposition, left wing activists and twisted anti-establishment lawyers claimed that the right to assemble as guaranteed under the Federal Constituition and United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights is a blank cheque that the law to empower police cannot be applied.

It is quite typical of them to be selective and hid the comprehensive and true interpretation of the Federal Constitution. They will never admit that our Federal Constitution is a document that balances and provide exception to every rights and previlages given to anyone and any groups for various reasons. One reason is to maintain peace and harmony in the country.

Article 10 reads as follows:

I am no lawyer but the English is crystal clear.

The right to assemble in article 10 clause 1(b) was not mentioned independently but with the condition of peace and without arms. If an assembly is deemed as a threat to peace and/or armed, then the right to assemble is denied.

Before we go any further, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assemble, and/or form association is conditional on Clause 2, 3 and 4 which is for Parliament to pass law to govern those rights.

Clause 2 emphasis further that peace i.e. security of the federation and public order determines the right to assemble which requires a permit.

Who determine whether a particular assembly is peacebly and without arms and permit can be issued? Is is the organiser of bersih 2.0, Dato Ambiga, Mat Sabu, the organising Committee and/or 400 Bar Coouncil members? Is it the twisted Professor of Law from UIA, Prof Aziz Bari?

No sirreee ... It is the police and only to the police is empowered to determine and issue the permit under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

Before anyone start to any excuse or blame, the Prime Minister is not Tun Dr Mahathir, someone seldom being accused of being responsible for the decay in public institution.

That so-called repressive law was enacted, passed and commence use under the premiership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who is revered and used by opposition and Chinese liberal and left wing NGOs for justification.

Police is in the business of maintaining law and order and it is with them that power and ability to determine if any assembly will be peaceful. They have the intelligence information and records of past assembly.

Seldom opposition sympathisers and supporters claim police as bias for the ruling party or pro Government NGOs.

Whether they admit it or not, the reality is the ruling party and pro-Government NGOs are more cooperative, respectable and do not resist the police. They are more law abiding than oppositions and left wing.

Police are human too. Every action only invite an equal and opposite reaction.

Given that they are involved in significantly more demonstrations and no permit assemblies, there is far to few arrest on them. Why would they demand a stern action against Perkasa?

If it means demanding police to be uncompromising in enforcing the law, the Parliament would be empty of opposition and Pakatan Rakyat states have empty MB's office.

The opposition and NGOs seldom claimed that their rights to assemble was being denied and it is in contravention against the United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights. Is it really so?

Former backbencher's chief, Dato Ruhanie Ahmad wrote a similar article and highlighted several important clauses in the Declaration that does not give a blank cheque to such freedom.

While Article 19 of the Declaration ascribed the basic rights and freedom, Article 29(2) stipulate that individuals are subject to certain limitation under specific law. The restriction is to ensure fair demand on morality, public order, and general safety of a democratic community.

Clause 29(3) emphasis the rights and freedom should not be in conflict with the purpose and principle of the United Nations.

The Agong has expressed his reservation. Read the Bernama report below as taken from Rocky Bru's here:

To-date, the police have spoken, explained, offered an alternative and pleaded the organiser to can called the march but to no avail.

Bersih 2.0 is neither a serious attempt to seek electoral reform nor proved conclusively and logically the existence of widespread fraud. It is a democratic hoax, as we described it in a two part series here and here, which is of political intention to create a tsunami wave and Egypt like power seizure.

As it is police had found existence of subversive materials and caught foreign parties linked to Communist and CIA together with Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists.

Much as this blogger hates it's usage, police have every excuse to apply ISA if Ambiga and Mat Sabu remains recalcitrant and defiant of police. Make no bone, ISA is within the power of police and not politician Minister.

Hear the video of Tun Hanif Omar's explanation on use of ISA below:

Don't be fooled by opposition, left wing NGOs and anti-establishment lawyers. They never tell the whole story but selective to meet they selfish purpose.

18 comments:

Buah Ciku
said...

Yes, you may be right. However, in order to prevent untoward incidents due to the Bersih rally, is it appropriate for the Police to arrest people for "wearing yellow T-shirts", "T-shirts that promote Communism", banning Bersih, etc? What do you think?

Detention Order under ISA after 60 days should be authorised by Minister. But the first 60 days i.e. for investigation, is authorised by police officers only, tak perlu menteri atau mejistret pun. If I'm not mistaken under sec.73.

Bangkok, Thailand July 2, 2011 - A tiny handful of Marxists, dupes, and shills converged in Bangkok today in what would seem like nothing more than a footnote in the day's news. In reality, it was actually the surfacing fin of a shark prowling the political waters of Southeast Asia.....

The Secret Rally That Sparked an Uprising - Cairo Protest Organizers Describe Ruses Used to Gain Foothold Against Police; the Candy-Store Meet That Wasn't on Facebook

By CHARLES LEVINSON And MARGARET COKER

CAIRO—The Egyptian opposition's takeover of the area around the parliament this week began with a trick—the latest example of how, for more than two weeks, young activists have outwitted Egypt's feared security forces to spur an uprising many here had long thought impossible.

On Tuesday, young opposition organizers called for a march on the state television building a few blocks north of their encampment in central Tahrir Square. Then, while the army deployed to that sensitive communications hub, protesters expanded southward into the lightly defended area around Egypt's parliament building.

read the rest at :http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576135882356532702.html

A great debate is going on amongst honest commentators over what is actually happening in Egypt. The debate stems from the horribly inaccurate information being supplied by the globalist owned mainstream media. A superficial look at AlJazeera, BBC, and CNN reveals that even their concerted efforts to build up public opinion behind the protesters are inconsistent. There is no better example than AlJazeera's 2 million man march, BBC's 100's of thousands man march, and CNN's tens of thousands man march.

Accomplished historian and unparalleled researcher Dr. Webster Tarpley outright calls AlJazeera a British intelligence operation, noting that Hahrir Square had at best 50,000 protesters at the height of the "march of millions." He attempts to point out that the protesters lack any pragmatic solutions amongst their demands.

The protesters' demands indeed lack any pragmatic, technical solutions for the myriad of problems that face Egyptian society, but their demands do become very specific regarding the changes in the system they would like to see. Protesters unfurled a banner enumerating these political "reforms."

Project on Middle East Democracy, a US National Endowment for Democracy funded NGO, translates the banner as saying:

“Our demands: 1. deposing the president 2. dissolving the two illegitimate houses of parliament 3. lifting the state of emergency immediately 4. forming a caretaker national unity government 5. an elected parliament that amends the constitution to allow fair presidential elections 6. bringing murders of demonstrators to trial 7. immediate judicial proceedings against corrupt officials and those stealing the of the nation.”

Ironically, many of the globalist think-tanks cheer-leading the protests and distributing the mass media's talking points have also made these exact "demands." Could it be that this organic, spontaneous uprising against the Mubarak regime just so happens to resonate verbatim with the globalist policy wonks? The answer is most emphatically, no.